Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Success Rates of Conventional Versus Endoscope-Assisted Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children 12 Years and Younger.

PURPOSE: To compare the success rates for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) treated with conventional probing versus endoscope-assisted probing.

METHODS: A retrospective nonrandomized comparison of the success rates in children (0 to 12 years) with CNLDO who underwent conventional probing or endoscope-assisted probing. Success was defined as absence of tearing or negative fluorescein dye disappearance test. Stent was evaluated.

RESULTS: A total of 270 patients with CNLDO comprised the study population. The mean age was 37 months in the conventional probing group and 48.5 months in the endoscope-assisted probing group. The subjective and objective success rates were 76.1% and 75.9%, respectively, in the conventional probing group and 95.7% and 95.7%, respectively, in the endoscope-assisted probing group. The success rates were higher for both methods in the endoscope-assisted probing group (P < .005). The success rate decreased in older children in the conventional probing group (100% < 6 months; 62.5% > 48 months) and remained stable in the endoscope-assisted probing group (100% < 6 months; 97% > 48 months). Stent did not improve success.

CONCLUSIONS: Endoscope-assisted probing increased success in older children and children with bilateral obstruction. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2016;53(5):292-299.].

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app